16
WINS, 9 LOSSES IN BALLOT ACCESS CASESLOSING
CASES MIGHT STILL WIN AFTER ELECTION IS OVER

During the last thirty
days, minor party and independent candidates have won sixteen lawsuits, and
lost nine. Six more decisions on whether certain candidates should
be on the ballot will be released the week of October 4-8 (see
chart below).

The cases that have lost
so far, merely lost in the sense of failing to get injunctive relief to place
the candidate or party on the ballot. Generally, no declaratory judgment has
been made in these cases. If these cases win after the election is over, they
will be useful in future elections.

Winning
Cases

Arkansas: on October
1, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Ralph Nader should be on the
ballot. Populist Party of Arkansas v Chesterfield, 04-994. The Populist
Party was created by Nader earlier this year, although he used that label
in only Arkansas, Maryland and Alaska.

Everyone agrees that
Nader collected more than 1,000 valid signatures. State law requires 1,000
signatures for independent presidential candidates, and for the presidential
nominees of unqualified parties. The Secretary of State had placed him on
the ballot, after checking his signatures. But a lower court judge had removed
him on September 20. The lower court judge had ruled that the petitions should
have said that the signers intended to vote for Nader.

The Arkansas Supreme
Court reversed, ruling that state law does not require such wording. Furthermore,
they noted that if the law did specify this wording, it would probably be
unconstitutional. Courts in other jurisdictions have ruled in ten cases that
states cannot require signers to say that they will vote for the candidate
named on the petition, or that signers adhere to the beliefs of the group
circulating the petition.

Colorado (1):
on September 3, Walt Brown, Socialist presidential nominee, won his ballot
access case. Brown v Davidson, Denver District Court, 04cv6907. The
issue was the deadline. The law says it is "120 days before the general
election", which is July 5. But that was a holiday. The Secretary of
State says the deadline was July 2, but the judge ruled that substantial compliance
means that Brownís filing on July 5 was proper. Even though the Secretary
of Stateís office was locked, Brown slipped his papers under the door.

Colorado (2):
on September 17, Nader won his ballot access case in Denver District Court.
Pakiefer v Davidson, 04-cv-7546. The Secretary of State had placed
Nader on the ballot because he was the Reform Party nominee, and that party
is qualified in Colorado.

Democrats then sued the
Secretary of State, saying that Nader was ineligible to be the Reform Partyís
nominee, since he is not a member of that party. They also said his electors
used the wrong form; and that the Reform Party should have used a state convention,
not a committee meeting, to choose its presidential elector candidates.

The judge did not issue
a written ruling, but orally he said that: (1) state law does not concern
itself with the party membership of presidential candidates; (2) the Reform
Party used the same form that the Republican Party had used; (3) state law
doesnít really tell qualified parties how to choose their presidential electors,
and even if it does, substantial compliance is good enough.

Florida: on September
17, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that Nader should be on the ballot
as the Reform Party nominee. Reform Party of Florida v Black, 04-1755.

The Reform Party is ballot-qualified
in Florida, so the Secretary of State had placed Nader on the ballot. But
on September 15, a Circuit Court in Tallahassee removed him. That Court did
not issue a written opinion, but the judge ruled orally that the Reform Party
is not a national party, nor is it a qualified party in Florida, nor did it
hold a proper national convention.

The judge quoted from
the testimony of a disgruntled former member of the party. That member had
testified that he had attended ten local meetings of the Reform Party, and
that the meetings never accomplished anything, and that the party consisted
of "grumpy old white men". The judge seemed more taken with this
evidence than any other evidence, and he cited it to establish that the Reform
Party is not a "bona fide" party.

Florida law lets any
party be ballot-qualified if it submits a list of its party officers. There
are no other requirements. Qualified minor parties (those with less than 5%
of the registration) may place a presidential candidate on the ballot if a
national convention is held. The Reform Party held a teleconference national
convention on May 11 to nominate Nader. Then, in case that was challenged,
they held a physical convention on August 27-29 in Texas.

The Florida Supreme Court
ruled that since the law doesnít define "national party" or "national
convention", there is no basis to disqualify it. If the Court had agreed
with the lower court, the precedent that a party must be "substantial"
in some poorly defined sense would have threatened the other minor parties
in Florida.

The victory for the Reform
Party was all the more remarkable because the opposing attorney in the Florida
Supreme Court was Laurence Tribe, famous Harvard Law Professor.

Maine: on September
28, a Superior Court in Kennebec County ruled that Nader should be on the
ballot as an independent candidate. Melanson v Gwadosky, AP 04-68.

Nader needed 4,000 signatures.
The town clerks had validated 4,118. The Democratic Party sued the Secretary
of State to invalidate the petition. The Democrats argued that signatures
with initials of first and middle names (instead of the full first name) were
invalid, that slight deviations in addresses between the petition and the
voter registration record made certain signatures invalid, and that ditto
marks should not be used. But the judge ruled that if the standards were that
high, ballot access would be unreasonably difficult.

Maryland: on September
20, the state Court of Appeals ruled that signatures on a statewide petition
need not be segregated by county. Nader for President 2004 v Maryland Board
of Elections, no. 76, 2004 term.

Everyone agreed that
the petition to qualify the Populist Party had 10,000 valid signatures, except
that the petitions were organized according to county of residence, and some
voters had signed the wrong county sheet. The lower court had ruled those
signatures invalid. The higher court reversed that, reasoning that since the
state now has a centralized list of registered voters, separate sheets for
each county are not important.

Michigan: on September
3, the State Court of Appeals ruled that Naderís independent petition is valid.
Deleeuw v Canvassers Bd, 257501. All agreed that it had enough valid
signatures. But the Democrats sued, arguing that since Republicans collected
most of the signatures independently of Nader, the petition is invalid. The
court said nothing in the law requires the circulators to coordinate with
the candidate.

Minnesota: on
September 27, the State Supreme Court put the Independence Partyís candidates
for Congress and state legislature on the November ballot. Moore v Kiffmeyer,
A04-1775.

The issue was a long-forgotten
law that requires a party that nominates by primary to attract a large number
of voters into its primary. The law had not been enforced in 2000. Thus, the
party had been shocked when Minnesotaís Republican Secretary of State had
ruled, after the September 14 primary, that none of the partyís nominees could
be on the November ballot because too few voters had voted in that partyís
primary. Minnesota has an open primary, so each primary voter decides on primary
day which partyís primary to use. The State Supreme Court ruled that the law
could not constitutionally be applied, and promised to explain its reasoning
later.

Nevada: on September
1, a state district court ruled that Naderís independent petition is valid.
On September 15, the State Supreme Court agreed. McKinley v Heller, 43881.

The Secretary of State
had ruled that Naderís petition had at least 5,019 valid signatures. Democrats
had sued to overturn that ruling, charging that many of the circulators had
listed their residence at hotels. However, both courts pointed out that no
law even asks circulators to give their addresses. A regulation does require
circulators to state where they "reside", but no definition of "reside"
exists in the regulation.

New Mexico: on
September 28, the State Supreme Court construed the stateís law to permit
presidential candidates to use the independent petition procedure, even if
that candidate is the nominee of a minor party in some other state or states.
Nader v Griego, no. 28900.

The Secretary of State
had placed Nader on the ballot, after determining that his independent petition
had 14,527 valid signatures. But the Democratic Party had sued to remove Nader,
arguing that state law requires independents to be unaffiliated with a political
party. Nader has been a registered independent voter his entire life, but
the objectors claimed that he is still "affiliated" with the Reform
Party, since he accepted its nomination. The Reform Party is not on the ballot
in New Mexico.

An hour after the Supreme
Court decision putting Nader on the ballot, a federal court ruled that if
New Mexico law really bans someone from being an independent presidential
candidate in that state if he or she is the nominee of a party in some other
state, then such a law would violate the First Amendmentís Freedom of Association
clause. Gladstone v Vigil-Giron, cv-04-1078.

New York: on August
25, a U.S. District Court ruled that circulators for an independent candidate
for district office need not live in that district. Chou v N.Y. Bd. of
Elections, 04cv2758. The plaintiff is a Green Party legislative candidate.

Pennsylvania:
on September 20, the State Supreme Court ruled that anyone may be an independent
presidential candidate in Pennsylvania, even if he or she is the nominee of
a minor party in another state or states. In re Nom. Paper of Nader,
154-2004.

The decision reversed
the Commonwealth Court, which had ruled on August 27 that Nader could not
be an independent candidate in Pennsylvania, since he was the Reform Party
nominee in other states.

Nader is still not assured
of being on the ballot, however. A review of his petition validity is still
in process.

Washington (1):
on September 15, a state court ruled that Nader should stay on the ballot
as an independent candidate. Washington Democratic Comm. v Reed, 04-2-1822-3,
Pierce.

Washington requires 1,000
signatures to put a statewide independent candidate on the November ballot.
The law speaks of these signers as convention attendees, but allows multiple
conventions. The state has long permitted independents to hold outdoor "conventions",
in which any voter walking past a busy street corner may sign, and be deemed
to have attended the "convention" being held on that corner. The
objectors argued that the standard should be stricter. However, the Court
said since the lawsuit didnít sue Nader (it only sued the Secretary of State),
it was fatally flawed.

Washington (2):
on September 28, a Superior Court in Thurston County put the Libertarian Party
nominees for Governor and U.S. Senator on the November ballot. Libertarian
Party of Washington v Reed, 04-2019742.

The Libertarian Party
is entitled to nominate by primary, since it polled over 5% of the vote in
2000. Other minor parties in Washington nominate by convention. Unfortunately
for the Libertarian Party, the law requires nominees of parties that nominate
by primary to poll 1% of all the votes cast in the primaries of all parties,
for that office.

At the September 14 primary,
approximately 1.3% of all the primary voters chose a Libertarian primary ballot.
Most of the Libertarian candidates were unopposed in their own primary, so
generally voters who chose a Libertarian ballot voted for the Libertarian
candidate for each office, and they met the 1% test.

But for Governor, two
Libertarians opposed each other in the primary, so, not surprisingly, neither
polled the needed 13,000 votes. The judge ruled that the 1% vote test seems
unnecessary to any state purpose, and works erratically.

West Virginia:
on September 2, a Circuit Court ruled that Nader should remain on the ballot.
State of West Virginia v Nader, 04-misc-332.

The Secretary of State,
a Democrat, had placed Nader on the ballot after finding that he had 12,963
valid signatures. But the Attorney General had then sued to remove Nader,
on the basis that some of the circulators had not displayed their "credentials".
The Secretary of State had told Naderís campaign that it was sufficient for
the circulators to have their credentials on their person, but that the credential
form need not be displayed. The judge ruled even if the law does require the
credentials to be displayed openly, no law says that the penalty for disobeying
it means the petition should be invalidated.

The Attorney General
appealed to the State Supreme Court, but on September 9 it refused to hear
the appeal.

Wisconsin: on
September 30, the State Supreme Court put Nader on the ballot. Nader v
Circuit Court for Dane Co., 04-2559-W. The issue is whether each candidate
for presidential elector (besides the two at-large ones) must live in a separate
congressional district. The Court said it doesnít matter where candidates
for presidential elector live, since they are all elected on a statewide slate.

Losing
Cases

Alabama: on August
24, U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson upheld the stateís 3% (of the
last vote cast) petition for minor parties and independent candidates. Swanson
v Bennett, 2:02cv644-T. Since he forgot to rule on the challenge to the
June petition deadline, plaintiffs have asked for a rehearing.

Alaska: on September
14, the State Supreme Court removed the Republican Moderate Party from the
ballot. State v Metcalfe, S-11618. The court has not yet explained
its reasoning. The party had been placed on the ballot in August by a lower
court, which had ruled the stateís 3% definition of "political party"
too difficult.

Arizona: on September
10, a federal court refused to put Nader on the ballot. Nader v Brewer,
4-1699. The issues are the stateís early June 9 petition deadline, and
the ban on out-of-state circulators. Injunctive relief was denied on the basis
that Nader should have filed the lawsuit earlier.

Illinois: on September
22, the 7th circuit refused to put Nader on the ballot. The court
said the case had been filed too late. The issues are the June petition deadline,
and whether signatures are valid if the signer moved since last registering
to vote. Nader v Keith, 04-3183.

North Carolina:
on September 24, a federal court refused to put Nader on the ballot. Nader
v Bartlett, 5:04-cv-675. The basis for the lawsuit is that since the law
was declared unconstitutional earlier, and since Nader has a modicum of voter
support, he should be put on the ballot. The court said the case had been
filed too late. Nader will not appeal this case.

Ohio: on August
31, a federal court upheld the early petition deadline for new parties (a
year before the election, the earliest in the nation). Libertarian Party
of Ohio v Blackwell, 2:04-cv-08. The judge didnít mention any of the four
U.S. Supreme Court precedents against early deadlines. The party is appealing.

Oregon: on September
22, the State Supreme Court removed Nader from the ballot because some of
the pages on his petition werenít numbered, and because some of the signatures
of the circulators were illegible. Kucera v Bradbury, S51756. On September
28, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 8-1 against a stay. However, that Court may
hear the case next year.

Texas: on September
1, a federal court upheld a law that requires an independent candidate for
president to get 41% more signatures than an independent candidate for other
statewide office. Nader v Connor, A04-ca-264. The 5th circuit
will hear Naderís appeal October 4.

West Virginia:
on September 2, a circuit judge refused to put the Libertarian candidate for
Governor on the ballot. The issue is the May petition deadline. McClure
v Manchin, 04-c-2197. The appeal will continue.

US
SUPREME COURT

On September 28, the
U.S. Supreme Court asked for a response from San Francisco in the Terry Baum
(Green Party) case (04-416). It also accepted the Oklahoma Libertarian case
on whether a party may demand an open primary for itself (04-37).

If a lawsuit may result
in winning the case in time for the election, the entry is "in court".
If the decision canít come in time to get the candidate on the ballot, the
entry is "(in court)". The Socialist Equality Party presidential
candidate is in state court in Ohio.

N.Y.
INDEPENDENCE PICKS NADER

On September 26, the
New York Independence Party nominated Ralph Nader for president. He had already
successfully petitioned for a place on that stateís ballot under the label
"Peace and Justice", so now he will be listed twice. The party met
in Albany, and had 100 delegates. The party uses weighted voting and proxies.
The results were Nader 91.4%, Cobb 4.2%, Kerry 4.0%, Bush .4%.

The Independence Party
of New York has been on the ballot since 1994. It has never cross-endorsed
any Republican or Democrat for the important offices of President, Governor,
or U.S. Senator, except that it has nominated Charles E. Schumer (a Democrat)
for U.S. Senator in 1998 and 2004. Past Independence Party nominees for President
have been Ross Perot in 1996 and John Hagelin in 2000.

UTAH,
VERMONT GREEN PARTIES

The September B.A.N.
said that two ballot-qualified state Green Parties, Utah and Vermont,
were unlikely to nominate David Cobb, the partyís national nominee. However,
the Utah Greens did nominate Cobb. Jerry Parsons, the partyís liaison to the
Utah Elections Director, then refused to certify Cobb (since he supports Nader),
but a few days later he resigned. The party replaced Parsons, and the new
liaison certified Cobb. However, the state wonít acknowledge the new liaison,
so Cobb is suing the state. The Utah Supreme Court hears the case on October
5. Green Party of Utah v McKeachnie, 2004-813.

The Vermont Greens held
a convention on September 12 and voted to nominate no one for president. Nader
didnít need their nomination, since he had qualified as an independent in
Vermont.

NADER
MATCHING FUNDS

Ralph Nader has now received
$664,150.95 in primary season matching funds this year.

OTHER
NEW YORK PARTY CHOICES

The N.Y. Working Families
Party chose John Kerry for president on September 18, and the Conservative
Party of New York chose George W. Bush on September 20.

AMERICAN
PARTY

For the second presidential
election in a row, the American Party has not placed its presidential candidate
on the ballot in any state. This yearís nominee is Diane Templin.

LIBERTY
UNION PARTY

On August 29, the Liberty
Union Party of Vermont nominated John Parker for president. He is also the
Workers World Party presidential nominee.

PROHIBITION
PARTY LANDMARK

Louisianaís ballot will
contain the Prohibition Party name on November 2. One of the two Prohibition
Party presidential nominees, Gene Amondson, qualified there. This is the first
time in history that the Prohibition Party name has ever been printed on a
government-printed ballot in Louisiana. That state first started using government-printed
ballots in 1896, and required 1,000 signatures between 1896 and 1977. Even
though the party was far stronger in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
than it is today, it never qualified in Louisiana until now.

ANOTHER
GREEN-LIBERTARIAN DEBATE

On September 30, the
second Badnarik-Cobb debate was held. There will be a Green-Libertarian-Constitution-Camejo
vice-presidential debate in Ohio on October 5.

SUBSCRIBING
TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you
can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit
card in connection with Paypal, use ban@richardwinger.com.
If you donít use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.